Why a society based on merit can’t fix inequality
Meritocracy is built on the principle that hard work and determination lead to success.
Why would someone that sleeps in, does not work hard, does not save money, does not sacrifice immediate pleasure for a future reward, deserve the same thing as someone who does the complete opposite?
The logic behind the meritocratic framework is clear: With X effort, one attains Y results, and, consequently, deserves Z rewards.
Is it possible to decide what people deserve?
In a society where hard work leads to wealth or money, it's tricky to decide what truly falls under the category of deserving.
For instance, should we only give healthcare to those who work hard? Is healthcare something you need to earn, or should it be a basic part of a society that respects the dignity of all its members?
So, what things can you genuinely deserve? Should you have to prove that you deserve to be alive and receive medical care when you're sick? The truth is, there's no clear-cut formula for these questions.
This leaves us wondering if the concept of merit or deserving is really enough to build a fair society that fully acknowledges our shared humanity.
What can meritocracy provide?
For the sake of our discussion, let us assume that it is possible to know what people deserve.
In other words, lets us imagine that a meritocratic society is a real possibility.
So, what can meritocracy provide? It ensures a fair path for people to move up in the economic world without facing prejudice. However, it doesn't actually solve the bigger problem of inequality.
In fact, meritocracy often makes existing inequalities look acceptable. Within this system, inequality is seen as a result of individual abilities.
As Michael J. Sandel puts it:
“The meritocratic ideal is not a remedy for inequality; it is a justification of inequality.”
(The Tyranny of Merit, 122)
Now, this might sound great to some, but let's consider what a meritocratic society could lead to.
Some unintended consequences of a meritocratic society
1. Greater divisions: hubris and resentment
In a meritocratic setup, individuals who achieve success through merit may develop a sense of hubris, potentially leading to divisions within society. It becomes a matter of "You get what you deserve."
Simultaneously, those positioned at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder may feel undervalued. While it is true that not everybody makes the same effort, it is not less true that not everybody has the same starting point. Some have faced far greater challenges from the beginning.
2. Shame on working-class jobs
Contemporary political discourse often stresses the importance of creating an egalitarian and meritocratic society to facilitate upward economic mobility for all.
However, this discourse remains centered on the idea that human dignity is dependant on not remaining "below."
This viewpoint quantifies human worth based on economic mobility, a framework that evaluates people based on their market value.
This perspective often neglects the reality that certain essential roles, such as caregiving and cleaning, will always be indispensable, even if individuals in these roles don't ascend the social hierarchy.
Rethinking Meritocracy
Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke, with a hopeful and prophetic tone, about a society governed by a new model that would leave the meritocratic model behind:
“One day our society will come to respect the sanitation workers if it is to survive, for the person who picks up our garbage is in the final analysis as significant as the physician, for if he doesn’t do his job, diseases are rampant. All labor has dignity.”
(Cited in Tyranny of Merit, p. 210).
As we contemplate the impact of meritocracy, it becomes crucial to ask: Is merit the right measure to determine what individuals should possess in our society?
Perhaps it's time to explore alternative frameworks for valuing every individual beyond their “merit”.
Perhaps we need to stop using status and wealth as a way of deciding who is worthy of love and recognition.
